CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSIONS
In this chapter, writer presented data from the field of study. The data were
result of Pre-test, Post-test class VII B, testing hypothesis, result of analysis and
discussion.
A. Data Presentation of Pre-test and Post-test
In this chapter, writer presented the obtained data. The data were presented
in the following table.
Table 4.5
19 E19 50 Low 50 Low 0
Based on table above, it can be seen that students’ highest score of
Pre-test was 84 and then, the lowest score of pre-Pre-test was 28. Meanwhile, highest
score of post-test was 81 and then, the lowest score of post-test was 31. The
different of highest pre-test and post-test was -3 meanwhile the lowest different of
pre-test and post-test was -28. After calculated data of pre-test and post-test,
writer made diagram to easy understand.
Table 4.6
Diagram Percentage of Pre-test at SMPN 1 Dusun Hilir No Score Frequency Percentages
Based on table and diagram above, writer conclude there was one student
who got score 84. There were nine students got score 75. There were two students
got score 71. There was student got score 68. There were three students got score
53. There were sixth students got score 50. There were two students got score 46.
There was 8 students got score 28.
Next step, writer tabulated score in to the table to searched data mean,
Calculated Data of Mean of Pre-Test :
46 2 92
deviation and standard error, it was appended at appendix). Next, writer tabulated
the data of distribution of normality in to the table used SPSS 16.0 program.
a. Testing Normality
Distribution of normality pre-test at SMPN 1 Dusun Hilir Table 4.9
Normality SPSS 16.00 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Y1
N 24
Normal Parametersa Mean 61.38
Std. Deviation 14.446
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .200
The table show the value of the test of normality used
kolmogrove-smirnove calculation was 0,200. It was found the value of the test was
normal.
B. Distribution post-test score
After tabulated data of pre-test, writer tabulated data of post-test
into the figure below.
Table 4.10
Diagram Percentage of Post-test at SMPN 1 Dusun Hilir
No X F Percentage
1 81 2 100,0 %
2 78 2 91,7 %
3 75 1 83,3 %
4 71 5 79,2 %
5 68 3 58,3 %
6 65 2 45,8 %
7 59 5 37,5 %
8 53 2 16,7 %
9 50 1 8,3 %
10 31 1 4,2 %
Based on table and diagram above, there were two students got score
81. There were two students got score 78. There was students got score 75.
There were five students got score 71. There were three students got score 68.
There were two students got score 65. There were five students got score 59.
There were two students got score 53. There was one students got score 50.
There was one students got score 31. Next step, writer tabulated data of score
post-test into the table for the calculation of mean as follow:
Table 4.11
50 1 50
After calculated data of post-test, writer calculated data distribution of
normality used SPSS 16.0 program.
Table 4.13 Normality SPSS 16.0
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Y2
N 24
Normal Parametersa Mean 65.17
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .684
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .738
a. Test distribution is Normal.
The table show the value of the test normality used SPSS 16.0 was
0,738. So, 0,738 > 0,05. It mean, the distribution was normal. Next step,
writer tabulated data mean, median, modus, standard deviation of pre-test
and post-test used SPSS 16.0 to support data of manual calculated.
After pre-test and post-test have to tabulated with manual calculation,
the next step writer used SPSS 16.0 program to support manual calculation
below.
Table 4.14 SPSS Accurate Score
Statistics
Y1 Y2
N Valid 24 24
Missing 0 0
Mean 61.38 65.17
Median 60.50 68.00
Mode 75 59a
Std. Deviation 14.446 11.431
Variance 208.679 130.667
Range 56 50
Minimum 28 31
Maximum 84 81
Sum 1473 1564
The mean of pre-test and post-test was similar with manual
calculation. Next step, writer testing hypothesis. But, before testing
hypothesis writer show the table of Standard deviation and Standard Error.
To test the hypothesis of the study, the writer used t-test statistical
calculation. Firstly, writer calculated the standard deviation and standard error
of Y1 and Y2 it was found the standard deviation and standard error of pre-test
and post-test at the previous data presentation. It could be seen on this
following table :
Table 4.15
Standard Deviation and Standard Error of Y1 and Y2
Variable Standard Deviation Standard Error
Y1 14,446 3,010948 of post-test was 11,431 and SE was 2,383528. Next, writer testing hypothesis.
Next step, writer calculated the to get testing test of Y1 and Y2 in the table
below :
Table 4.16
E01 53 59 6 36
Data of t-test let see the formula and calculation data below:
∑D = 91
∑D2
= 1475
N = 24
√∑ x√∑
√ -√
√ 14,37674
√
After got the result of Standard deviation, writer used standard
error formula to searched mean of different in data.
√
√
1,430743 or 1,431
Next step, writer used MD = Mean Different. Different of between
score 1 (pre-test) and score 2 ( post-test).
∑
After calculated data from MD = Mean Different, writer searched
data to testing hypothesis.
With the criteria :
If t-test (t-observed) t-table, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected
If t-test (t-observed) t-table, Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted
Then, writer interpreted the result of t-test. Previously, writer
accounted the degree of freedom (df) with the formula :
Df = (N-1)
= 24-1
= 23
Where :
df = degree of freedom
N = Number of students
t-table at df 23 at 5% significant level 2,07
The calculation above show the result of t-test calculation as in the table
follows :
Table 4.17
Calculated Testing Hypothesis test Variable t observe
t table
Df/db
5% 1%
Y1 – Y2 2,65 2,07 2,81 23 Where:
Y1 = Pre-test
Y2 = Post-test
t observe = The calculated Value
t table = The distribution of t value
df/db = Degree of Freedom
Based on table above, the value of t observe more high than t table at 5
% significant level and t observe more lower at 1% or 2,07 < 2,65 < 2,81. It
could be interpreted that (Ho ) was rejected at error level 1 % and Ha was
accepted at error level 5 %. It meant there was significant effect of whole
class interactive teaching method in teaching speaking skill for students at
interactive teaching method was effective to be used at SMPN 1 Dusun
Hilir.
1) Testing hypothesis based on SPSS 16.0
Writer also calculated t-test used SPSS 16.0 program to calculated
testing hypothesis. Result of SPSS in testing hypothesis was used support
the manual calculation of testing hypothesis. See table 4. Below by SPSS
16.0 program.
Table 4.18
Calculated SPSS 16.0 Testing hypothesis Paired Samples Test
Confident interval lower was 6,751 and upper was 0,832. tobserved 2,650. Df
was 23 and significant failed was 0,14. So, result between manual
calculation and SPSS16.0 program was similar. The comparison of manual
calculation and SPSS 16.0 were similar 3,792. SD of manual alculation was
1,431 meanwhile SPSS 16.0 was 1,431 also. to manual calculation was 2,650
it was similar with result of SPSS 16.0 program. Df of manual calculation
and SPSS was 23.
2) Discussion
The result of discussion proved that there was significant effect of
implementation of whole-class interactive teaching method on speaking
fluency at SMPN 1 Dusun Hilir. There were some students who got high
result but, there were some students who also got score low at the same
time. Based on manual calculation writer got tobserved = 2,65 and t table = 5%
=2,07and 1% = 2,81. Significant level 2,07 < 2,65 < 2,81. Meanwhile
calculated used SPSS 16.0 program was similar with manual calculation. It
mean Ha was accepted in the error level at 5 % and Ho was rejected in the
error level at 1 %. Before writer gave treatment to students, the mean of
pre-test result was 61,38 and after gave treatment, the result of post-test
was 65,17. It show there was effect after implementation whole class
interactive teaching method in speaking skill students. So, this method
effective to used in the school.
There were some reasons why using Whole Class Interactive
Teaching gave significance effect for the students’ speaking skill. First,
whole class interactive teaching was effective in improving speaking skill
students. It can be seen the result mean of pre-test was 61,38 and post-test
was 65,17. this finding was supported by Al-Shammari in chapter II page
in teaching English as a foreign language. It was support by the
advantages whole class in chapter II, showed It is the most effective way
to teach concepts and skills are explicit to students who are
underachieving, page 13. And also support by Ambar Wahyuni in chapter
II, research showed that the students involved activity in teaching learning
process, they were more encourage and confident to speak in English than
before. page 8.
Second reason was whole class interactive teaching method can
used in english foreign language especially in speaking skill. It was
support by previous study of Mohammad Aliakbari page 9 said the results
revealed that classroom interaction can be considered as a way of
improving the learners’ speaking ability. And previous study of
Kouicem Khadidja in chapter II showed the result is the idea that
interaction could and should take place in the classroom became more and
more popular especially in second or foreign language classroom page 7.
Last reason was whole class interactive teaching can motivate
students in speak english. It showed the advantages of interactive teaching
the teacher as facilitator, motivator, and active learning designer the
students development score, page 16. This statement also support by
interview guide students Mereuni Raya said, he was happy study English
and he was want always study English and develop in order that more
fluent. And also Tri safitry said she was rightfully proud speak English
Muhaimin said she was rightfully proud study English and he want
become translator. Dwi Eef Lamiri said, he felt enough to study English
and he want always study English. Almost students said they want study
English. This finding also support from interview guide by susilawati said,
she was happy learn english. Tiara Ayu Lestari said she was rightfully
proud speak english. M Govinda said he satisfied speak english. Tri Safitri
said she was usually speak english. Kries Sentia said she was brave speak
english and she was did not nervous speak english.
Problem of writer in implementing this method were some students
did not know how to make dialogue or conversation, they were bored and
frustrated because always practice and made conversation. This statement
supported by interview guide students. Pricilla said she was nervous, she
did not know meaning of english. Hidayatullah said he was lack up
vocabulary. Rahmawati said pronunciation different with writing in the
book. Sugeng said, the word difficult to translate to english conversation.
Rizal M said he did not know understand. As a teacher difficult, to manage
the whole students and the time of students limited to active. This
statement supported by the disadvantages of whole class interactive
teaching in chapter II, page 23.
The solution of this case, Writer motivated students to learned
English and writer gave them vocabulary to memorize every day. To
teaching Whole class interactive teaching method it was depend on
enthusiasm, students become active learning English. So, writer made
conclusion about definition of combine whole class and interactive
teaching became whole class interactive teaching method was teaching in
whole class where students can interact with teacher as a central of class,
teacher can discuss and sharing with students if students got problem of
learning English, especially to made conversation and reached the purpose
of learning.
Those the result of implementation whole class interactive teaching
method at seventh grade students at SMPN 1 Dusun Hilir. Based on theory
and writer result of pre-test and post-test, whole class interactive teaching
method gave significant effect in teaching speaking skill at seventh grade
students at SMPN 1 Dusun Hilir and this was effective to used in the
